Narrative:

Advised princeton FSS planning to depart ona, mn, (656 ft MSL) on runway 29 and requested IFR clearance. Received clearance from FSS on ground. The clearance read, 'cleared to waukesha, radar vectors, enter controled airspace heading 060 degrees maintain....' this clearance would suggest that the aircraft should turn from 290 degrees to a 060 degree heading prior to entering controled airspace at 700 ft AGL or about 1356 ft MSL, the lower limit of class east airspace over the ona airport. The potential conflict is that the IFR departure procedure specifies a climb on runway heading to 1900 ft MSL before turning. The reason for this is most likely the bluffs that lie on either side of the runway. While the base of the class east is technically 700 ft above the earth, the terrain is relatively flat until an abrupt rise at the bluffs. Climbing straight out to 1900 ft MSL would put the aircraft into controled airspace prior to reaching 1400 ft MSL. Since in our case the WX was VMC at the time of departure, we were able to maintain visual reference to the surrounding terrain and determined we could comply with the ATC clearance without the need to follow the IFR departure procedure. The IFR departure procedure is easily missed, it is a note at the end of the airport page on commercial charts, and must be looked up in a separate section of the government approach chart book. In both cases, it is merely a textual description with no visual depiction of the procedure. Many airports with special requirements to clear obstacles have sids. Following the restrs in a SID will provide obstacle clearance, in which case the IFR departure procedure need not be used. From past experience, I know that the IFR departure procedure is something that is frequently overlooked, probably more so in areas such as the midwest where it is not normally a factor. When we were airborne after contacting ZMP, I asked the controller about the conflict between the ATC clearance and the IFR departure procedure. The controller stated that terrain clearance was the pilot's responsibility and that the ATC clearance was there to satisfy the traffic requirements of ATC. While technically correct, it seems irresponsible for ATC to give an IFR clearance that would turn an aircraft toward high terrain should the pilot attempt to comply exactly with the ATC clearance. The clearance even read 'radar vectors' which, when in radar contact, implies terrain clearance provided by ATC. I believe that the phraseology 'enter controled airspace on heading...' could easily cause confusion, either because of the mistaken assumption that the ATC clearance provides terrain protection or by the pilot not noticing the IFR departure procedure. During my discussion with the ZMP controller, he asked how I felt the clearance should be worded. At the time I didn't have a really good answer, but I did suggest something like 'when able fly heading 060 degrees' or to just assign heading 290 degrees which corresponds with the IFR departure procedure. After reflecting for a while, I think that when terrain clearance after departure is the pilot's responsibility and not provided for by a SID or specific departure clearance, that fact should be reinforced as part of the ATC clearance. Perhaps a clearance such as 'when terrain clearance assured, fly heading XXX' or 'when terrain separation assured cleared on course.' the point is that this is a potential trap. In the same way that phraseology was added to the approach clearance to clarify a frequently misunderstood point ('cleared for the...approach, maintain XXX until established on a published segment of the approach'), adding some wording to the departure clearance could reinforce the pilot's responsibility for obstacle clearance. I think this is the first time I have ever run across this particular conflict, but the fact that it may be rare just makes it more of a potential problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BEECH BONANZA ACFT ON IFR DEP PLT QUESTIONS WHAT APPEARS TO BE CONFLICTING DEP PROCS. ACFT SHOULD ENTER CTLED AIRSPACE (CLASS E) ON HDG 060 DEGS AND 1356 FT MSL. THEN IFR DEP PROC SPECIFIES TO CLB ON RWY HDG TO 1900 FT MSL BEFORE TURNING.

Narrative: ADVISED PRINCETON FSS PLANNING TO DEPART ONA, MN, (656 FT MSL) ON RWY 29 AND REQUESTED IFR CLRNC. RECEIVED CLRNC FROM FSS ON GND. THE CLRNC READ, 'CLRED TO WAUKESHA, RADAR VECTORS, ENTER CTLED AIRSPACE HDG 060 DEGS MAINTAIN....' THIS CLRNC WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ACFT SHOULD TURN FROM 290 DEGS TO A 060 DEG HDG PRIOR TO ENTERING CTLED AIRSPACE AT 700 FT AGL OR ABOUT 1356 FT MSL, THE LOWER LIMIT OF CLASS E AIRSPACE OVER THE ONA ARPT. THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT IS THAT THE IFR DEP PROC SPECIFIES A CLB ON RWY HDG TO 1900 FT MSL BEFORE TURNING. THE REASON FOR THIS IS MOST LIKELY THE BLUFFS THAT LIE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RWY. WHILE THE BASE OF THE CLASS E IS TECHNICALLY 700 FT ABOVE THE EARTH, THE TERRAIN IS RELATIVELY FLAT UNTIL AN ABRUPT RISE AT THE BLUFFS. CLBING STRAIGHT OUT TO 1900 FT MSL WOULD PUT THE ACFT INTO CTLED AIRSPACE PRIOR TO REACHING 1400 FT MSL. SINCE IN OUR CASE THE WX WAS VMC AT THE TIME OF DEP, WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN VISUAL REF TO THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN AND DETERMINED WE COULD COMPLY WITH THE ATC CLRNC WITHOUT THE NEED TO FOLLOW THE IFR DEP PROC. THE IFR DEP PROC IS EASILY MISSED, IT IS A NOTE AT THE END OF THE ARPT PAGE ON COMMERCIAL CHARTS, AND MUST BE LOOKED UP IN A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE GOV APCH CHART BOOK. IN BOTH CASES, IT IS MERELY A TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION WITH NO VISUAL DEPICTION OF THE PROC. MANY ARPTS WITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS TO CLR OBSTACLES HAVE SIDS. FOLLOWING THE RESTRS IN A SID WILL PROVIDE OBSTACLE CLRNC, IN WHICH CASE THE IFR DEP PROC NEED NOT BE USED. FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, I KNOW THAT THE IFR DEP PROC IS SOMETHING THAT IS FREQUENTLY OVERLOOKED, PROBABLY MORE SO IN AREAS SUCH AS THE MIDWEST WHERE IT IS NOT NORMALLY A FACTOR. WHEN WE WERE AIRBORNE AFTER CONTACTING ZMP, I ASKED THE CTLR ABOUT THE CONFLICT BTWN THE ATC CLRNC AND THE IFR DEP PROC. THE CTLR STATED THAT TERRAIN CLRNC WAS THE PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT THE ATC CLRNC WAS THERE TO SATISFY THE TFC REQUIREMENTS OF ATC. WHILE TECHNICALLY CORRECT, IT SEEMS IRRESPONSIBLE FOR ATC TO GIVE AN IFR CLRNC THAT WOULD TURN AN ACFT TOWARD HIGH TERRAIN SHOULD THE PLT ATTEMPT TO COMPLY EXACTLY WITH THE ATC CLRNC. THE CLRNC EVEN READ 'RADAR VECTORS' WHICH, WHEN IN RADAR CONTACT, IMPLIES TERRAIN CLRNC PROVIDED BY ATC. I BELIEVE THAT THE PHRASEOLOGY 'ENTER CTLED AIRSPACE ON HDG...' COULD EASILY CAUSE CONFUSION, EITHER BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT THE ATC CLRNC PROVIDES TERRAIN PROTECTION OR BY THE PLT NOT NOTICING THE IFR DEP PROC. DURING MY DISCUSSION WITH THE ZMP CTLR, HE ASKED HOW I FELT THE CLRNC SHOULD BE WORDED. AT THE TIME I DIDN'T HAVE A REALLY GOOD ANSWER, BUT I DID SUGGEST SOMETHING LIKE 'WHEN ABLE FLY HDG 060 DEGS' OR TO JUST ASSIGN HDG 290 DEGS WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH THE IFR DEP PROC. AFTER REFLECTING FOR A WHILE, I THINK THAT WHEN TERRAIN CLRNC AFTER DEP IS THE PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT PROVIDED FOR BY A SID OR SPECIFIC DEP CLRNC, THAT FACT SHOULD BE REINFORCED AS PART OF THE ATC CLRNC. PERHAPS A CLRNC SUCH AS 'WHEN TERRAIN CLRNC ASSURED, FLY HDG XXX' OR 'WHEN TERRAIN SEPARATION ASSURED CLRED ON COURSE.' THE POINT IS THAT THIS IS A POTENTIAL TRAP. IN THE SAME WAY THAT PHRASEOLOGY WAS ADDED TO THE APCH CLRNC TO CLARIFY A FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINT ('CLRED FOR THE...APCH, MAINTAIN XXX UNTIL ESTABLISHED ON A PUBLISHED SEGMENT OF THE APCH'), ADDING SOME WORDING TO THE DEP CLRNC COULD REINFORCE THE PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR OBSTACLE CLRNC. I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER RUN ACROSS THIS PARTICULAR CONFLICT, BUT THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE RARE JUST MAKES IT MORE OF A POTENTIAL PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.